Judgment No. 16955 of 2024: The Crime of Theft and Embezzlement in Public Service

The recent judgment No. 16955 of March 28, 2024, by the Court of Cassation provides an important clarification regarding the distinction between the crime of theft and that of embezzlement. This ruling became necessary following a specific case in which a public official, a carabiniere, had taken possession of a cell phone belonging to an arrested individual before the item was officially seized. The Court reiterated that the conduct of the public official in this context constitutes the crime of theft, rather than embezzlement.

The Difference Between Theft and Embezzlement

The ruling clarifies a crucial aspect of Italian criminal law: theft, under Article 624 of the Penal Code, is a crime that occurs when an individual takes possession of someone else's property without the owner's consent. In contrast, embezzlement, governed by Article 314 of the Penal Code, occurs when a public official appropriates property that they have access to by virtue of their office.

In the case at hand, the conduct of the carabiniere constituted theft as there had been no prior availability of the item for official reasons. This distinctly differentiates his action from that of a public official who, for example, appropriates property received for safekeeping in the performance of their duties.

Difference with the crime of embezzlement - Method of acquiring the property - Relevance - Case law. The conduct of the public official or public service agent who, while exercising official duties, takes possession of another's money or movable property 'invito domino' and without having previously obtained availability for reasons of office or service, constitutes the crime of theft, not embezzlement. (Case concerning the removal by a carabiniere of the cell phone of the arrested individual before the item was seized or otherwise taken into custody for official reasons).

The Implications of the Ruling

This ruling has important implications for both legal practice and the functionality of public institutions. Firstly, it reaffirms the need for a strict distinction between unlawful conduct for the purposes of criminal liability of public officials. This is essential to ensure citizens' trust in institutions and to maintain high ethical standards among those operating in public service.

  • Reaffirmation of the distinction between theft and embezzlement.
  • Clarity regarding the liability of public officials.
  • Implications for training and ethical conduct in law enforcement.

Conclusions

In conclusion, judgment No. 16955 of 2024 represents a significant step in Italian jurisprudence regarding crimes against property, particularly concerning the conduct of public officials. It underscores the importance of always operating in accordance with the law and not confusing responsibilities related to public service with unlawful behavior. The distinction between theft and embezzlement is not just a legal matter but a fundamental principle of ethics and integrity that must guide the actions of every public official.

Bianucci Law Firm